EPA v. Suncoke Energy Inc (Gateway and Haverhill)

Case summary

On November 10, 2014, the Court entered a consent decree in this action resolving our Clean Air Act claims relating to excessive bypass venting brought against Defendants Gateway Energy & Coke Company, LLC, Haverhill Coke Company, LLC. Because operation of the Redundant HRSGs has exacerbated corrosion-related issues at the SDAs, Defendants must replate the SDAs to upgrade their metallurgy and to make them more corrosion-resistant, and assist in more effective operation of the SDAs. The Second Amendment would allow Defendants to use tie-in hours to address the corrosion at the SDAs and increase the number of available tie-in hours. Because the SDA Replating Project will result in additional emissions of SO2 and other pollutants beyond those anticipated under the consent decree, the proposed Second Amendment requires Defendants to: (1) meet even lower bypass venting emissions limits relating to SO2 at both coking facilities than were required by the consent decree, and seek to incorporate such lower limits into construction permits and Title V operating permits; and (2) continue to operate the flue gas desulfurization units (FGDs) at the two facilities to over-control SO2, particulate matter (?PM?), lead, and, as to the Ohio Facility, hydrochloric acid (HCl) emissions from the main stacks by, among other things, injecting excess lime slurry into the SDAs. The Second Amendment also requires that Defendants continue to operate the continuous emissions monitors (CEMS) required by the consent decree until excess emissions have been mitigated, instead of until gas sharing (between the existing and redundant HRSGs) has commenced operation. The proposed Second Amendment would also (1) streamline reporting obligations under the consent decree, and (2) add reporting requirements relating to mitigation of excess emissions resulting from the SDA Replating Project and submission of excess emission reports for the CEMS. The Second Amendment does not require Defendants to pay any additional penalty, because the increased pace of corrosion at the SDAs due to installation of the Redundant HRSGs was not anticipated, and Defendants have cooperated with the Plaintiffs in devising an environmentally protective solution in advance of when the excess emissions are expected to occur. The complaint, which will be filed in the Southern District of Illinois, alleges violations of bypass venting provisions and emission limits at both the Ohio and Illinois facilities over five years, from 2007 to 2013.

Defendants (2)

• GATEWAY ENERGY & COKE COMPANYNamed in complaintNamed in settlement
• HAVERHILL COKE COMPANY, LLCNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (2)

• GATEWAY ENERGY & COKE CO LLC

  2585 EDWARDSVILLE RD, GRANITE CITY, IL, 62040-6320

  Registry ID: 110043807538

• HAVERHILL COKE COMPANY LLC

  2446 GALLIA PIKE, FRANKLIN FURNACE, OH, 456298837

  Registry ID: 110054816703

Statutes cited

• CAA 502 — Operating Permits (Title V)
• CAA 110 — Implementation Plan for National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards
• CAA 112D — MACT Standards
• CAA 165 — Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

Enforcement conclusions (4)

• Suncoke Energy Inc (Gateway and Haverhill)entered 2020-11-13

  Primary law: CAA

  Federal penalty: $45,500 · State/local: $44,000

• Suncoke Energy Inc (Gateway and Haverhill)entered 2018-07-10

  Primary law: CAA

• GATEWAY ENERGY & COKE CO.entered 2014-11-07

  Primary law: CAA

  Federal penalty: $1,270,000 · State/local: $725,000 · SEP: $255,000

• Suncoke Energy Inc (Gateway and Haverhill)entered 2020-09-25

  Primary law: CAA

Timeline (6 milestones)

• 2009-09-25Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 2010-09-27Supplemental Referral-Other
• 2010-10-08Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 2013-06-26Complaint Filed With Court
• 2020-11-13Final Order Lodged
• 2020-11-13Final Order Entered